Report to/Rapport au:
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee /
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales
and / et
Transportation Committee/
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
18 July 2008 / le 18 juillet 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : R.G. Hewitt,
Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
Public Works and Services/Services
et Travaux publics
Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi, Director / Directeur
Surface
Operations/Opérations de surface
(613)
580-2424 x21110, john.manconi@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee and Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve
the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works & Services Department
include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating and Capital Budget Estimates for
consideration the following:
1.
That the Road Patrol Program be expanded from its
current state to be aligned with the Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario
Regulation 239/02) on Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads per Option 1 of this report
and as recommended by the Auditor General and the Rural Summit
2.
That the 2009 estimated operating cost of $996,000 and
11 FTE’s and estimated one-time capital costs of $430,000 for this program be
provided as follows:
a)
Existing funding within the SOP Operating Budget of
$355,000 and 4 FTE’s from the current road patrol program
b)
That remaining funding required to implement the Road
Patrol program be added to the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures
estimated at an additional annual operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and
one-time capital funding of $430,000.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions
rurales et le Comité des transports recommandent au Conseil d’accepter que la
Direction des opérations de surface des Services et Travaux publics prévoie
dans le projet de budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations pour
2009 :
- L’expansion du Programme de patrouille routière
afin que celui-ci réponde aux normes d’entretien minimal (Règlement de
l’Ontario 239/02) pour ce qui concerne les routes de catégorie 1, 2, 3, 4
ou 5, conformément à l’option 1 présentée dans le présent rapport et aux
recommandations formulées par le vérificateur général et à la suite du
Sommet rural.
- Que
les coûts de fonctionnement estimatifs de 996 000 $ et les 11
ETP ainsi que les coûts ponctuels estimatifs de 430 000 $ devant
être consacrés à ce programme en 2009 soient répartis de la manière
suivante :
a) 355 000 $ provenant du budget de fonctionnement de la Direction des opérations de surface et 4 ETP actuellement consacrés au programme de patrouille routière;
b) que les autres crédits nécessaires pour
la mise en œuvre du programme de patrouille routière soient ajoutés aux
pressions sur le budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations pour 2009, soit
des crédits de fonctionnement supplémentaires estimatives de
641 000 $ et 7 ETP ainsi que des crédits d’immobilisation
ponctuels de 430 000 $.
BACKGROUND
Road patrolling is carried out to inspect the roadway and adjacent right-of-way to detect defects that may adversely affect the structure of the road and consequently, public safety. In addition, road patrols and associated follow-up maintenance activities help to extend the life and investment of public infrastructure.
Ontario Regulation 239/02, which came into force on November 1, 2002, contains what are described as the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) for roads and bridges. Included in the MMS are standards that describe road patrol operations. The standards describe the frequency that roads should be patrolled for deficiencies based on the classification of the roadways (Road classifications based on Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and speed limit). While the MMS are not mandatory, they offer a certain level of protection to limit liability against claims. If a municipality wishes to use the MMS as a legal defence against statements of claim, the municipality must meet the standard of care in the MMS and be able to prove it was met.
As part of the development of Harmonized Service Standards for the new City, the Surface Operations Branch developed its own Maintenance Quality Standards. These standards, which were approved by Council on June 11, 2003 (ACS2003-TUP-SOP-0004), included a strategy, which would provide a road patrol program in compliance with the MMS. Council approved the standards, however, did not approve the accompanying recommendation to provide the additional funding necessary to fully implement the program. Furthermore, as part of the 2004 Universal Program Review, $1.042M associated with road patrol on collector and residential streets was cut from the Surface Operations Branch budget.
Currently, class 1 and 2 roads are being patrolled and the patrollers are documenting the deficiencies on paper records. The Auditor General identified the current road patrol practices as insufficient in the 2006 Surface Operations Branch audit presented to Council on May 9, 2007.
A summary of patrolling frequencies for the MMS, the current City of Ottawa standard, and our current process is provided in Document 1.
DISCUSSION
Key Drivers of Road Patrol
The Surface Operations Branch is recommending that road patrols be expanded from their current state (road patrols on class 1 and 2 only) to be aligned with the provincial MMS in response to several key drivers:
1. In the Auditor General’s 2006 audit of the Surface Operations Branch, it was recommended:
a. That branch resources be redirected so that road patrols are reinstated in accordance with the City standards; and
b. That
the branch re-engineer its approach to planning work so that the notification
system is a complement to a systematic approach based on routine maintenance,
road patrols, and preventative maintenance.
2. At the 2005 and 2008 Rural Summits, respectively, the following recommendations were made:
a. Have routine inspections of Class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to keep ditches clear and address other rural road maintenance issues; and
b. Maintenance
of rural roads should remain a priority with the City of Ottawa.
3. The Surface Operations Branch continues to move towards more proactive and cost effective services, including the proactive planning and programming of work through its internal “operations planning” and “performance measurement” initiatives.
Key Benefits of Road Patrols
There are several key benefits that are associated with completing routine road patrols within the City of Ottawa, including:
· Optimized Life-Cycle / Asset Management
· Enhanced Operations Planning
· Improved Public Service, and
· Risk Management.
Optimized Life-Cycle / Asset Management
One of the key findings in the 2006 audit was the need to reinstate road patrols. In the report the Auditor indicated that:
“Road Patrols must be reinstated to at least the levels specified in provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMSMH) in order to ensure the preservation of capital investments through both routine and preventative maintenance, as well as the safety of municipal roads”.
The road patrol function allows the City to identify deficiencies and conduct preventative maintenance techniques (pothole repairs, minor asphalt repairs, shoulder work, etc.) to ensure the roads do not deteriorate prematurely. This results in the infrastructure lasting its “expected life” and delays the need for capital replacement projects. It is generally accepted that proactive maintenance work can help extend the service life of pavement and sidewalk structures. Preventive roadway maintenance typically addresses minor deficiencies early, before the defects become major problems requiring large repairs or reconstruction. Preventive maintenance is a key part of extending the life of an asset at relatively low cost and can contribute significantly to the minimization of overall asset lifecycle cost. Eventually, even with preventive maintenance, roadways age and deteriorate to a point where it becomes more cost effective to renew or reconstruct the roadway rather than continue with many small repairs. These considerations are taken into account in the City’s asset management program.
Enhanced Operations Planning
A second key finding in the 2006 audit was the need to become more proactive in the identification and planning of maintenance activities. In the report the Auditor indicated that:
“That SOP re-engineer their approach to planning work so that the Notification system is a complement to a systematic approach based on routine maintenance, road patrols and preventive maintenance.”
The Surface Operations Branch is currently in the process of implementing an improved operations planning framework for maintenance activities that will provide the primary tool for continuous improvement of operations. Road patrols and other forms of inspection will be a key mechanism for identifying deficiencies and having them planned and scheduled appropriately for completion.
A formal road patrol program results in the proactive identification of deficiencies in the road network. The deficiencies that are documented during road patrols are then prioritized and scheduled for repair according to a level-of-service standard that is based upon the location (i.e. Class of road and its importance to the transportation network) and the severity of the deficiency. In this manner, the road patrol function will support the proper management of work to ensure maintenance activities are conducted in a timely, prioritized and cost efficient manner.
Improved Public Service
Conducting road patrols on class 1 to 5 roads will result in an improvement in overall service due to faster remediation of deficiencies. This was identified many times during Rural Summit 1, and resulted in the following service recommendation:
“Have routine inspections of Class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to keep ditches clear and address other rural road maintenance issues.”
Faster remediation of deficiencies is particularly important in rural areas where, although traffic volumes may be lower, risks can be greater due to higher posted speed limits, absence of street lighting, and the common presence of roadside ditches.
By scheduling road patrols to occur at regular frequencies, any deficiencies that are found will be identified and scheduled for repair within a timely manner. The alternative method by which a deficiency would be identified and repaired is through the communities’ use of the City of Ottawa 3-1-1 number. If a member of the public calls 3-1-1 in order to report a problem it is most likely the result of deficiency that has been in place for an extended period of time. Road patrol would provide more proactive inspection of such deficiencies and therefore result in remediation of the problem before the public is motivated to call the City. The proactive approach to maintenance will improve service levels over the long term and result in greater customer satisfaction.
One of the purposes of introducing the MMS was to help limit the exposure of municipalities to claims from the public by demonstrating due diligence of its assets. Implementing road patrol and being able to demonstrate compliance with patrolling frequencies and repair standards provides a reduction in liability exposure.
Based on analysis of historical information, however, road patrol cannot be financially justified on the basis of claims mitigation alone. Based upon figures collected by Risk Management for the years 2001-2006, the City receives an annual average of approximately 202 claims related to deficiencies that could be mitigated through routine road patrols. The total annual liability exposure is approximately $60,000. A further risk that could be mitigated is the liability associated with the infrequent, individual claim with a large settlement amount. Quantification of that risk requires data and expertise beyond the scope of the current analysis.
From a risk management perspective, claims related to sidewalks are of more significance. For the same time period as the roadway analysis above (2001-2006) the average annual claims for “trips and falls” and “slips and falls” were approximately $199,000 and $294,000 respectively.
Sidewalk deficiencies are not addressed by road patrols, however, the Surface Operations Branch is currently working to research and develop improved sidewalk inspections and patrols. The Branch is also engaged with other municipalities and the Ontario Good Roads Association who are working on developing standards of practice for sidewalk inspection and patrol. Once greater certainty regarding the direction of legislated sidewalk patrols becomes available, the Branch anticipates moving forward with more formalized proactive sidewalk patrols.
Municipal Benchmarking
In an effort to determine the road patrol standards and procedures being carried out in other jurisdictions subject to the Provincial legislation, a survey was sent to the following municipalities and regions:
|
§ City of Toronto § City of Barrie § City of Brampton § City of Greater Sudbury § City of Mississauga § City of Guelph § City of Hamilton § City of London § Ministry of Transportation |
§ Norfolk County § Durham Region § Halton Region § Peel Region § Waterloo Region § York Region § Niagara Region § Wellington County § District of Muskoka |
The survey consisted of 8 questions and was focused on determining if other municipalities were following the MMS described in Ontario Regulation 239/02 and served to gather information about their internal processes.
Leveraging Technology
Equipping staff with the appropriate technology to support road patrol functions has many tangible benefits, including:
· Reduced staff time required to perform routine and winter patrols and administrative staff time for data entry, handling and retrieval
· Improved consistency and accuracy in records management
· Greater protection against liability due to improved process consistency and records retention
· Enables data gathering to track trends – could be used to prioritize assets for replacement
· Ability to determine whether the repair time service windows are being met
· Ability to interface with workload planning software for repair scheduling.
The technology industry has recognized these benefits and there are now several software products available that allow municipalities to realize the full benefits of the road patrol function from both risk management and workload planning perspectives.
It is recommended that the funds be allocated in order to purchase available road patrol software to support implementation of the program in accordance with the MMS. Due to the size of the road network within the City of Ottawa, implementing road patrols in accordance with the MMS without the supporting software will not achieve the intended benefits listed above, while increasing significantly the administrative burden on staff for record keeping and transfer of identified deficiencies into the operations planning system. It is estimated that the technology solution will avoid the need for, at the least, an additional 1-2 FTEs.
Summary of Road Patrol Options
Several options for the road patrol program were considered in the analysis from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective. The costs of conducting road patrol were determined for each road class. The three key options available are highlighted below of which Option 1 is recommended.
|
Option
Description |
Advantage |
Disadvantage |
|
Option 1 (Recommended) Expand Road Patrols to Include Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Roads |
·
Consistent with the
recommendations of the Auditor General. ·
Follows direction
provided through the Rural Summits ·
Consistent with the
Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario Regulation 239/02) ·
Enables all the road
patrol benefits (described under the heading “Key Benefits of Road Patrol” in
this report) across the entire road network. |
·
Require additional
annual operating funds of $641,000 for the addition of 7 FTE's, 7 vehicles,
and supporting hardware and software. ·
Requires one-time
capital funding of $430,000 in 2009 for vehicles and technology. |
|
Option
2. Conduct Road Patrols on Class 1 and 2 Only (Status Quo) |
·
No additional cost. |
·
Not consistent with
the recommendations of the Auditor General ·
Not consistent with
the direction provided through the Rural Summits ·
Does not enable
lifecycle cost benefits preventive maintenance ·
Does not enable full
operational productivity benefits from proactive operations planning ·
No improvement to
timeliness of service due to continued reliance on 311 calls to identify
work. |
|
Option
3. Expand Road Patrols to Include Class 1, 2, and 3 |
·
Does not require
additional FTE's (the 4 additional FTE's required will be absorbed through
efficiencies). Instead, this option will only necessitate the addition of 4
vehicles and the supporting hardware and software. |
·
Not consistent with
the recommendations of the Auditor General ·
Provides the
recommended road patrol program for only a portion of the road network –
primarily in the urban core area ·
Much of the rural road
network, as well as the entire residential network would continue with no
formal road patrol. For these unpatrolled areas, the same shortcomings
identified under Option 2 would apply ·
This will require
additional annual operating funds of $66,000 and one-time capital funding of
$281,000 in 2009. |
Pending Revision to Road Patrol Regulations
The Provincial legislation governing road patrol (Ontario Regulation 239/02 which came into force on November 1, 2002 and contains what are described as the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) for Municipal Highways) is currently under a mandatory 5-year review. Some changes are being considered, particularly to the winter patrolling component.
City of Ottawa staff are aware of the task force’s work and do not anticipate major impacts on the direction regarding road patrols in the City of Ottawa as presented in this report. Staff will continue to monitor the work of the task force, assess impacts of new legislation once enacted, and report back to Council if there are any material impacts on the City’s Road Patrol Program.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
One of the key recommendations from the first Rural Summit held in November 2005 was to have "routine inspections of class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to keep ditches clear and address other rural road maintenance issues". Road maintenance continues to be a key area of interest as confirmed in the recently held Rural Summit II held in April 2008.
CONSULTATION
Extensive consultation with the rural community was undertaken through Rural Summit I and Rural Summit II. Rural road infrastructure maintenance was one of the key items discussed during the summits. Direction from the summits has been considered and incorporated into this report.
The Roads maintenance operations of a number of Ontario municipalities, as listed under the “Municipal Benchmarking” heading of this report, were consulted regarding road patrol practices, compliance, and use of technology. Results of this consultation are discussed in the report.
Internal City consultation by the
Surface Operations Branch has also been conducted with the following Branches:
·
Rural Affairs - The Rural Affairs Officer endorses the
recommendations of the Rural Summits and is in support of this initiative
·
Infrastructure Services Branch - Supports this
initiative as it aligns with and is part of Infrastructure Services Branch’s
Asset Management Strategy
· Legal Services/Risk Management - Has reviewed the report and endorses the initiative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The following are the financial implications for the recommended enhanced service levels identified in this report. The expanded Road Patrol Program is currently not incorporated as part of the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures:
Option 1 - Minimum Maintenance Standards on Class 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Roads
The total annual Road Patrol Program is estimated operating cost of $996,000 and 11 FTE’s and a one-time capital cost of $430,000.
The 2009 Operating and Capital requirements for this program be provided as follows:
· Existing funding within the SOP Operating Budget of $355,000 and 4 FTE’s for the current road patrol program
· That remaining funding required to implement the Road Patrol program be added to the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures estimated at an additional annual operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and one-time capital funding of $430,000.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - Comparison of Road Patrol Frequencies
DISPOSITION
Upon approval of this report and the 2009 Budget, the Public
Works and Services Department, Surface Operations Branch will commence with
implementation of the program as outlined in the report.
Document 1
Comparison of Road Patrol Frequencies
